regbar

Economics is more and more influential in our societies. Its specialists should then be accepted as authorities. Yet, this is not the case. They are even more and more derided. This situation is partly due to economists themselves that tend to exaggerate their differences and to quibble about quite insignificant matters.

However, the chief responsibles (responsible?) of this paradox are politicians. Indeed, the man in the street is informed about economics mostly through them, and the latters (latter?) often distort economic ideas in order to be re-elected. This distortion is made by three ways.



All the economic facts (inflation, trade surplus or deficit, interest rates change etc.)

contain in themselves advantages and drawbacks : all coins have two sides. Politicians see the two aspects of each one but tend to present only one side in order to corroborate their political aims. In other words, they stress on the side which suit them. Doing that (ce faisant), they mislead people and prevent them to understand economics.





The market is a place that centralized all the knowledge, all the decisions of its operators. The information is "materialized" in the different market prices. Prices show which operations are profitable for economic agents. For example, in the financial market, speculators give information to government taking advantages of some market anomalies. They are not the responsible but the messengers of these anomalies. On the contrary, bringing these anomalies to light, they give useful signal to governments : Yet, the latters (latter ?) mislead people "shooting the messengers".



When politicians fear to economic change, they tend to mislead people inventing some fallacious arguments. For exemple, the politicians of industrialized countries that do not want to change the structure of their economy argue that new technology destroy more jobs than it creates, what is false.





Unfortunately, politicians can be expected to keep on misleading people, making fallacious claims with demagogic aims.

jackspeese

Excellent job, I made a few small corrections in [], if you have any questions let me know. One general thing, when you're talking about people, you should use the relative pronoun who, not that, that is for things.

The use and abuse of economics
This is an article published in the Economist on the 25th of November 1995. The Economist is an economic weekly magazine. The text is an editorial, that is, a paper in which its author presents his own point of view. The text therefore is not supposed to be objective. It is entitled "The use and abuse of economics" and [talks about] the distortion of economic ideas by politicians. The paper begins with the exposition of a paradox: economics is recognized as a sound discipline. This social science is more and more influential in our societies. Yet, economists are much criticized. What could explain this paradox? The whole of the text intends to answer to this question. If economists are so derided, it is because of the distortions of their ideas, mainly by politicians.


Economics is more and more influential in our societies. Its specialists should then be accepted as authorities. Yet, this is not the case. They are even more and more derided. This situation is partly due to economists themselves [who] tend to exaggerate their differences and to quibble about quite insignificant matters.

However, the [main ones responsible] for this paradox are politicians. Indeed, the man in the street is informed about economics mostly through them, and the [latter] often distort economic ideas in order to be re-elected. This distortion is made [in] three ways.


1) The one-sided coin

All [of] the economic facts (inflation, trade surplus or deficit, interest rates change etc.)

contain in themselves advantages and drawbacks : all coins have two sides. Politicians see the two aspects of each one but tend to present only one side in order to corroborate their political aims. In other words, they stress on the side that suits them. [In doing so ](ce faisant), they mislead people and prevent them from understanding economics.


2) Shoot the messenger


The market is a place that centralized in terms [of] all of the knowledge, all [of] the decisions of its operators. The information is "materialized" in the different market prices. Prices [indicate] which operations are profitable for economic agents. For example, in the financial market, speculators give information to the government, taking advantages of some market anomalies. They are not the [ones] responsible, [rather, they are] the messengers of these anomalies. On the contrary, [by bringing] these anomalies to light, they give useful [signals] to governments : Yet, the [latter] mislead people by "shooting the messengers".


3) [Fear of/Aversion to] change

When politicians fear []economic change, they tend to mislead people by inventing some fallacious arguments. For example, the politicians of industrialized countries [who] do not want to change the structure of their economy argue that new technology [destroys] more jobs than it creates, which is false.

Unfortunately, politicians can be expected to keep on misleading people, making fallacious claims with demagogic aims.

regbar

Hello ! Thank you very much for your help. It is strange you say that "that" only is used for things. My english teacher told me it can also be used for people.
I want to be sure that your translation is english, not american (?).
Thanks again for your answer.

jackspeese

Cher(e?) Regbar,
Je suis anglophone natif, et bienque "that" ne soit pas forcement incorrect en ce sens, c'est quand-meme mieux d'employer le pronom "who" en parlant d'etres humains et "that" pour les choses inanimees.
Il n'y a que des petites differences orthographiques entre l'anglais americain et britannique, mais soi-dites differences n'ont rien a faire vis a vis mes corrections, qui seraient les memes aux tous pays anglophones. Enfin, permets-moi de te dire encore que tu ecris un chouette anglais au niveau superieur a lui de beaucoup de mes compatriots.

regbar

Cher(e?)[cher] Regbar,
Je suis anglophone natif, et bienque [bien que] "that" ne soit pas forcement incorrect en ce sens, c'est quand-meme mieux d'employer le pronom "who" en parlant d'etres humains et "that" pour les choses inanimees.
Il n'y a que des petites differences orthographiques entre l'anglais americain et britannique, mais soi-dites differences n'ont rien a faire vis a vis mes corrections, [ mais ces soient disantes différences ne concernent pas mes corrections] qui seraient les memes aux tous pays anglophones [ qui seraient les mêmes quelque soit le pays anglophone]. Enfin, permets-moi de te dire encore que tu ecris un chouette anglais au niveau superieur a lui de beaucoup de mes compatriots. [tu écris un chouette anglais, supérieur à celui de beaucoup de mes compatriotes].

Merci encore pour ton aide.

The_FD

C'est marrant parce que j'ai failli corriger Jack qui fait de vraiment belles tournures de français, surtout pour un non français de naissance. Mais mes corrections auraient été légèrement différentes et le sens aurait aussi été modifié (simple nuance certe mais tout de même!).

Jack- mais soi-dites differences n'ont rien a faire vis a vis mes corrections
regbar- mais ces soient disantes différences ne concernent pas mes corrections
mine would have been- mais les dites différences ne concernent pas mes corrections


I thought I would just drop a word to let you know

__________________
L'histoire de la famille Bourdillon
Les fêtes d'Hébé
The flying dancer dancing

regbar

mine would have been- mais les dites différences ne concernent pas mes corrections.

En fait, je pense que vous avez raison : les dites différences (so-called ?).
Bien vu .Je n'avais pas compris la phrase ainsi mais vous avez surement raison.